But the "real" bomber actually flies - real wind, air, physics. CIG can't even get a pretend bomber to fly for 12 hours on a busy server without a crash (30k)... and if they do it is an outlier. That is why I am thankful Star Citizen does NOT have anything to do with "REAL" planes/rockets/space shuttles, because we'd all be dead. Because if airplanes started falling out of the sky because of "glitches", Chris Roberts would be in jail. The point is, that we can engineer real-life stuff faster than CIG can create a make-believe universe. Pretty pathetic if you ask me. That said, Star Citizen has been running better than ever, so that is a big development... a good thing Chris isn't in charge of something that matters.
"Boeing recently ousted CEO Dennis Muilenburg who oversaw the launch of the 737 Max program." - so there is actually some accountability.
Gosh... I'm harsh in writing.
Lots of stuff here... Going to point out that 'recently' isn't even close to the truth, Muilenberg was shown the door 4 years ago. And the investment firm he founded afterward has failed too. Good riddance to bad leadership. There is much more to this story but the tl:dr is that all the involved executives were eventually dismissed.
The U.S. Government/Military Industrial Complex Company name of your Choice has trillions in spending, most of which is unbacked, imaginary money. We'll never know how much this prototype cost, but I'll guarantee it'd get Everyone at CIG a yatch of their own. So your comparison is non-sequitor; it does not logically follow.
Unpopular opinion - the Air Force has a bomber fetish that simply cannot be supported by real world events.
A) We (the USA) are never going to start a nuclear war. If one is started by someone else, most of ours will not get off the ground.
B) Bombers are big targets that are forcing 'stealth' technology developments to keep them survivable within the areas that traditional weapons are needed. They can be tracked from several vectors including advanced ground-based radars and satellite sensors.
C) The standoff weapons that stealth bombers can carry are also fitted to the B-52, a decidedly un-stealthy workhorse that will likely have a 100+ year service lifespan as the remaining units go into yet another rework for their engines and avionics.
D) Those same standoff weapons can be delivered by other platforms, most of which are multimission. Economics of doing so is a valid question.
E) Warfare has changed, and is continuing to evolve away from direct engagement by large capitol assets.
In SC gameplay, once we have proper Pathfinders and Scouts in game, using an A1 or A2 is going to become a very dodgey proposition. CIG will likely do some kind of balancing to make it possible, but my money goes on the RISK side of that scale. I.E. if you get past my Terrapin, it's likely because I'm vectoring
@marcsand2 and his Yellowjackets in on top of you.
My money is on the USAF having AI controlled aircraft before CIG comes out with NPC crewman.
Already do. Look up MQ-25; also the Loyal Wingman program. These are flying now.
For perspective: I'm retired USN Aviation, with many years in a fighter squadron and the Electronic Warfare community. At this time I work for the company making the KC-46A Tanker, and spent a year hands-on within that program.
